Fammily and Historiography

A little note:

Ben said, “In addition, try to keep your moments varied -- they should show different sides to what DeLillo is doing -- and spread out throughout Part One (if they're all from the first 30 pages, I'm gonna get a little suspicious...),” but actually, all the most important parts are in chapters 2~5 (first 21 pages)… Then I wonder if I can do ‘jump moments”…

Image to identity and “World Spirit” to “great men”:

“Babette, disheveled, has the careless dignity of someone too preoccupied with serious matters to know or care what she looks like…. I reminded her how much I liked the way she looked. I suggested there was an honesty inherent in bulkiness if it is just the right amount. People trust a certain amount of bulk in others…. The chancellor warned against what he called my tendency to make a feeble presentation of self. He wanted me to ‘grow out’ into Hitler…. I am the false character that follows the name around…. He (Murray) took pain to avoid self-depreciation, self-mockery, ambiguity, irony, subtlety, vulnerability, a civilized world-weariness and a tragic sense of history---the very things, he says, that are most natural to him. Of these he has allowed only one element, vulnerability, to insert gradually into his program of straightforward lust. He is trying to develop a vulnerability that women will find attractive. He works at it consciously… But his efforts so far have produced only this half sneaky look, sheepish and wheedling” (pages 5, 7, 16, 17). This is an example of my “jump moments,” all because Ben limited the moments to three. In here, Don explains about the ties of a person’s identity with his/her appearance, and the “Chosen Ones”. Jack describes his wife, Babette, as looking dignify because she does not care about her look but about something more important (ironically, that “thing” turns out to be death). When it is his turn, his appearance does not match his identity. He said that Hitler is a very big figure and if he does not “grow” his own identity, he seems unmatched to study about Hitler. As Murray’s advice, Jack starts to wear heavy glasses, grow beard, and change (or add initials to) his name, J.A.K., to make his character/identity bolder. It turns out to be back fired, his wife said J.A.K. sounds cheap and all of his “trying to look bold” seems fake and a bit forcing. Murray tries to make himself looks “vulnerable” and attract women because he thinks women like some certain kinds of vulnerable men. The more he tries, the more he looks suspicious, awkward, and flirty. From this part, I can find connections to Hegel in every way. Obviously faceless people who are not guided by the “World Spirit” are still faceless people no matter what the do to their appearance or even trying to “reinforce” their identity (Jack and Murray), while people with the “World Spirit” are naturally shine even if they want to or not (Babette the wife).

Silly human cycle and unpredictable history cycle:

When the wife said she wants to eat healthy food but she does otherwise…

“This isn’t the lunch I planned for myself… Where have we heard that before? … She keeps buying that stuff… But she never eats it… Because she thinks if she keeps buying it, she’ll hve to eat it just to get rid of it. It’s like she’s trying to trick herself… It takes up half the kitchen… So then she starts the whole thing all over again” (page 7). It is the cycle of narrative that Hegel said will lead all of us to freedom and end of history. The thing “This isn’t [add words here] I planned for myself” is way too Hegelish to not notice. Of course human plan things all the time but they will not simply achieve the goals they plan, there are always something additional. “Where have we heard that before? [Someone] keeps [doing something]” is just way too generally historical. History is a bunch of synthesis-antithesis-solution, so of course it is repeated. The next part is the conflict. She buys it but she doesn’t eat it and they are left to rot. As Hegel said, if there is no conflict, there will be no history, thus, freedom. If Babette buys stuff and she eats them all, the kitchen won’t be too full, she wouldn’t feel guilty when she see them, and what is there for the kids to talk about? Then the conflict will continue until it reaches freedom and history ends.

Death to future and “great men” to legends (history):

“We’ve agreed to be part of a collective perception. This literally colors our vision. A religious experience in a way, like all tourism… They are taking pictures of taking pictures (Historiography!!!)…. Who will die first? This question comes up from time to time, like where are the car keys. I wonder if the thought itself is part of the nature of physical love, a reverse Darwinism that awards sadness and fear to the survivor… The question of dying becomes a wise reminder. It cures us of our innocence of the future” (pages 12, 15). Have to explain the second part first to make sense of the first part. The family talks about death rather often, or they are just too obsessed with it. Death brings sadness to the living… because the dead can longer feel? Or we just don’t know it. But death is a mystery. People (including me) normally think that as soon as you are alive you can do things, which means immortals can do lots of things all their lives. But actually it is not so. Because people fear of death (their own deaths), their fear is what drives them to act while still living (which also means immortals won’t do anything because they don’t die). This also concerns the “great men” and their history. “Great men” die and leave something to the livings, the livings only choose certain facts they believe in to record. Thus, history is no different than a religion, “This literally colors our vision,” and is also true to a certain point.

(Is it just me or Hegel’s everywhere? Maybe Hegel colors my vision…)